Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Running program files on XP with non-executable extension?

Reply
Thread Tools

Running program files on XP with non-executable extension?

 
 
Solly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005


Windows 98 SE
Word 2000

Will start up word and load a document regardless of file
extension.

Renaming it to book.xyz still opens it.

What this shows ia the parser must be looking not just
at the file name but inside the file content.

just one more reason not to trust any microsoft software.

I wonder what other applications do this.

If you cant tell how your software behaves you can never
have a secure system no matter what you do with fire walls.

Not even a "vaguely" secure system. You are wide open.

Solly
-------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger Wilco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2005

"Solly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> Windows 98 SE
> Word 2000
>
> Will start up word and load a document regardless of file
> extension.
>
> Renaming it to book.xyz still opens it.
>
> What this shows ia the parser must be looking not just
> at the file name but inside the file content.


Could be that to support OLE the OS must have this ability - they should
have unregistered extensions (and no extension) default to give the
"open with" dialog box instead of just invoking Word based on the file.
You can still edit the registry to do this, but I don't know the
particulars of how to do so.

> just one more reason not to trust any microsoft software.


To me, the whole idea of association by extension is wrong. Associations
really should be by actual filetype (what you are complaining about) and
the associations by extension kept to a minimum.

> I wonder what other applications do this.


You could experiment with other OLE(2?) enabled applications..

> If you cant tell how your software behaves you can never
> have a secure system no matter what you do with fire walls.


Absolutely, and installing and running additional software on the
machine is not the right approach to increasing security.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil Nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2005

"Roger Wilco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Solly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> >
> > Windows 98 SE
> > Word 2000
> >
> > Will start up word and load a document regardless of file
> > extension.
> >
> > Renaming it to book.xyz still opens it.
> >
> > What this shows ia the parser must be looking not just
> > at the file name but inside the file content.

>
> Could be that to support OLE the OS must have this ability - they should
> have unregistered extensions (and no extension) default to give the
> "open with" dialog box instead of just invoking Word based on the file.
> You can still edit the registry to do this, but I don't know the
> particulars of how to do so.
>
> > just one more reason not to trust any microsoft software.

>
> To me, the whole idea of association by extension is wrong. Associations
> really should be by actual filetype (what you are complaining about) and
> the associations by extension kept to a minimum.
>
> > I wonder what other applications do this.

>
> You could experiment with other OLE(2?) enabled applications..
>
> > If you cant tell how your software behaves you can never
> > have a secure system no matter what you do with fire walls.

>
> Absolutely, and installing and running additional software on the
> machine is not the right approach to increasing security.
>


Interesting...I tried this and a couple other experiments and found some
interesting results:

1) Double-clicking on the file on the desktop (instead of opening it inside
of Word) does cause the pop-up box asking what program to use to open the
file.

2) Tried to open a shortcut on the desktop (from inside Word) to WinZip and
what appeared looks like a 208 page document of code (not very readable,
just a lot of gobbledygook like "fj$hFLV<uVj").

3) Tried to open an actual program executable (an EXE file) and once again
saw a bunch of code.

Apparently Word tries to open each and every file regardless of the type
(tested this with Word 2000 on Win2000 system).


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger Wilco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2005

"Phil Nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsMSgf.4045$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>
> "Roger Wilco" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Solly" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > >
> > > Windows 98 SE
> > > Word 2000
> > >
> > > Will start up word and load a document regardless of file
> > > extension.
> > >
> > > Renaming it to book.xyz still opens it.
> > >
> > > What this shows ia the parser must be looking not just
> > > at the file name but inside the file content.

> >
> > Could be that to support OLE the OS must have this ability - they

should
> > have unregistered extensions (and no extension) default to give the
> > "open with" dialog box instead of just invoking Word based on the

file.
> > You can still edit the registry to do this, but I don't know the
> > particulars of how to do so.
> >
> > > just one more reason not to trust any microsoft software.

> >
> > To me, the whole idea of association by extension is wrong.

Associations
> > really should be by actual filetype (what you are complaining about)

and
> > the associations by extension kept to a minimum.
> >
> > > I wonder what other applications do this.

> >
> > You could experiment with other OLE(2?) enabled applications..
> >
> > > If you cant tell how your software behaves you can never
> > > have a secure system no matter what you do with fire walls.

> >
> > Absolutely, and installing and running additional software on the
> > machine is not the right approach to increasing security.
> >

>
> Interesting...I tried this and a couple other experiments and found

some
> interesting results:
>
> 1) Double-clicking on the file on the desktop (instead of opening it

inside
> of Word) does cause the pop-up box asking what program to use to open

the
> file.


That is a GOOD thing. All unregistered extensions, including no
extension, should prompt a dialog to ask the user.

> 2) Tried to open a shortcut on the desktop (from inside Word) to

WinZip and
> what appeared looks like a 208 page document of code (not very

readable,
> just a lot of gobbledygook like "fj$hFLV<uVj").


A shortcut to a text document may show the text in notpad when called
from notepad, but if you use DOS (and the EDIT program) you will see the
real shortcut file's "gobbledygook" and its target text file mentioned
within. Notepad would probably load the target.

> 3) Tried to open an actual program executable (an EXE file) and once

again
> saw a bunch of code.


As you would expect, I expect. )

> Apparently Word tries to open each and every file regardless of the

type
> (tested this with Word 2000 on Win2000 system).


Many programs will, but some will warn that "this is not a valid picture
file" or some such thing if opening an exe in a graphics viewer. Most
editing programs will do the best they can to render the gobbledygook.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Explorer 8: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe vs C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Nathan Sokalski Windows 64bit 16 02-22-2010 08:31 AM
How to replace c:\Program Files with Program Files (x86) in allscripts? clearguy02@yahoo.com Perl Misc 5 05-15-2009 02:23 PM
Program Files vs Program Files x86 =?Utf-8?B?QklHRQ==?= Windows 64bit 2 02-14-2006 08:26 PM
running another program from a C++ program Lorenzo Bettini C++ 3 09-24-2005 10:05 AM
Help !I want to write a program to count the running time of another program freehomesp@yahoo.com.cn C Programming 1 08-12-2005 06:13 AM



Advertisments